Sunday, September 4, 2011

Flotilla hypocrisy excessive, but raid still legal - part 1

And no matter how many articles concentrating on Israel's use of "excessive force" are published, you can't change the fact that the raid was legal.

I wonder how many people actually bothered to read the 105-page report (notice the "Strictly confidential" at the top). It can easily be summarized with: The Gaza blockade is legal, the flotilla
was provocative and without justification - all because Gaza won't pacify and come to negotiation tables (they prefer communication through the wonders of rocket technology). The report amazingly recognizes Israel's right to self-defense even though Gaza's legal status is undefinable.The report reviewed the national investigations conducted by both Turkey and Israel, and then came to its own (lengthy, footnote-filled) conclusion.

Here's a little "best-of" from the report: (emphasis mine if present)

There was little need
to organize a flotilla of six ships to deliver humanitarian assistance if only
three were required to carry the available humanitarian supplies. The number of
journalists embarked on the ships gives further power to the conclusion that
the flotilla’s primary purpose was to generate publicity.

That's what I've been telling friends since the 31st of May 2010, when I found myself to be the spokesperson of the Israeli position following the rampant ignorance flowing all around me. The flotilla was not humanitarian, it was a propaganda tool (with dubious IHH ties to boot). There was very little humanitarian cargo on three of the six ships, and quasi none on the Mavi Marmara, and it was all unnecessary given the large quantities of aid coming in regularly from Israel.

There is a further
issue. No adequate port facilities exist in Gaza capable of receiving vessels
of the size of the Mavi Marmara.It
appears that arrangements had been made to offload the cargo onto smaller
vessels at sea,which
no doubt would be awkward and inefficient. Yet the flotilla rejected offers to
unload any essential humanitarian supplies at other ports and have them
delivered to Gaza by land.These offers were made even during the voyage.The
conclusion that the primary objective of the flotilla organizers was to
generate publicity by attempting to breach the blockade is further reinforced
by material before the Panel that suggests that a reception for the flotilla
had been arranged by Hamas.

It was foreseeable to
the flotilla organizers as it was to the Turkish Government that there was a
possibility of force being used against the ships to enforce the blockade. While the level of lethal force that was actually used may have been
unforeseen, the organizers did anticipate that there would be an altercation
with Israeli forces. The Panel is concerned that not enough was done to inform
the participants in the flotilla (including the almost 600 passengers on the Mavi
Marmara) of the risks of personal injury that the journey may have
involved.

Are you kidding me? The participants were more than well informed, they were prepared for it, they were asking for it. Yes, there are videos of them doing so, why do you ask?

Then comes the report's main incoherence. They agree, in theory, that Israel is allowed to defend itself. But in practice, they don't agree with the method. Do they have other solutions? "Try less lethal next time". So no solutions, just empty words from people who've never been in a dangerous situation.

For Israel to
maintain the blockade it had to be effective, so it must be enforced. That is a
clear legal requirement for a blockade.Such
enforcement may take place on the high seas and may be conducted by force if a
vessel resists. To this point in the analysis no difficulty arises. But the
subsequent steps taken raise serious questions as to whether the enforcement
was executed appropriately in the circumstances.

Yes, because you would have taken out your magic wand and with a flick and swish said "Petrificus totalus" and the whole incident would be over.

The Panel questions
whether it was reasonable for the Israeli Navy to board the vessels at the time
and place that they did. [...] The distance from the
blockade zone was substantial—64 nautical miles. There
were several hours steaming before the blockade area would be reached.

But - you JUST said - never mind.

Then there is the fact that the boarding attempt was made by surprise, without any immediate prior warning.

If you watch the youtube clip above, there was plenty of warning, and the boats were being shadowed for a while before they were boarded. Was the IDF supposed to forgo all tactical advantage and inform the Flotilla of their every move? Where is that written in the San Remo Manual?

Then, we get to the actual use of force on the Mavi Marmara, all that in the upcoming part 2!

Why a Grouch?

The world does things and says things which make me grouchy. People are not coherent, people are not rational, people believe other stupid people. I am a person in need of a platform where I can express myself freely, without needing to fear that I seem unpolitically correct. I would like to keep my friends, so I avoid expressing all this in front of them. Though I seem grouchy, I actually am a nice person. I can even be taken out in public without biting people.